INCLUSIVE PRACTICES POSITION PAPER HOLLY PENDER 17190770

Inadequacies of The Early Years Learning Framework: Reassessing priorities

The Early Years Learning Framework, or EYLF, advocates for the best start in life for
children (DEEWR 2009 pg5) and acknowledges that Early learning has an impact on the childs future
or life chances. Although the Framework includes references to the importance of inclusive
practice and assessment of childrens learning, it falls short of the necessary prioritisation required to
support children with additional needs to reach this intended potential. Early Childhood Australia
and Early Childhood Intervention Australia (2012) state that experiences, interactions and
relationships at a young age have a significant influence on a childs future life outcomes. This paper
discusses the EYLF in reference to principles, attitudes, practices, best interests and rights of the
child regarding early identification of additional needs and the areas where the framework is lacking.
In order for Early Childhood Educators to readily access the most relevant resources for children
with disabilities they need to be supported by the policies and frameworks which direct their
practice. In the case of the Early Years Learning Framework, specific strategies and avenues for
intervention need to be outlined and prioritised as an imperative focus of early education and care.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC 1989) states that
assistance extended to children with special needs shall be designed to ensure that the disabled
child has effective access to and receives education, training, health care services, rehabilitation
services and recreation opportunities in a manner conducive to the child's achieving the fullest
possible social integration and individual development inclusive of cultural and spiritual
considerations. Australia, as a signatory of the treaty, is obliged to enact these principles through
policy and legislation. Although the Early Years Learning Framework states that effective practice
calls for the identification of individuals with additional needs and for the provision of support or
assisting families to access specialist help (DEEWR 2009 pg17), the Framework is lacking when it
comes to bridging the gap between Early Education services and external specialists. Johnston&
Dixon (2005) highlight the wide variety of personnel who specialise in Early Intervention services for

children, including speech pathologists, occupational therapists, nurses, paediatricians, social

workers and nutritionists. The EYLF makes no mention of these services specifically and ultimately
outlines a mandatory principle of assessment and assistance for children with little input on how and
where educators can access support, as well as who from. In this way, educators and families are left
to navigate the important path of external intervention for the children within their care without the
guidance of a research supported policy. The National Framework for Protecting Australias Children
(2009) sets an enviable goal in developing safeguards for children including strengthening
availability of disability support services for children and their families (Council of Australian
Governments 2009 pg 22) which could provide a basis for collaboration in the future if a network of
professionals could be established under a pre-existing umbrella. An extension of the EYLF principles
regarding intervention could promote networking within wider communities inclusive of relevant
professionals. COAG (2009) states that children have a right to receive the services they need to
enable them to succeed in life. In terms of children with additional needs, this right is
underrepresented in the Early Years Learning Framework, which would benefit from the addition of
a practical, well-developed intervention guide designed to assist parents and educators in taking the
most direct and effective steps to receiving necessary support.
The Disability Discrimination Act (1992, section 2A-a) legislates against developing
curriculacontent that will either exclude the person from participation, or subject the person to
any other detriment and consequently enshrines inclusion practices into Australian law. The EYLF is
clear in its support of principles regarding inclusion and equity in Early Childhood practice and
encourages educators to challenge practices that contribute to inequities and make curriculum
decisions that support inclusion and participation of all children (DEEWR 2009). The use of the term
equity rather than equality acknowledges that in order for fair and inclusive practices to be
implemented for children who may benefit from intervention that additional support may be
required. Graham & Macartney (2012) suggest that the distinction between these terms in
education has been blurred and highlights the difference between equality (as exact division) and

equity (as fairness based) as being especially important when discussion disability and intervention.
The EYLF further promotes that the learning experiences offered are inclusive of all children,
implying that necessary steps be taken to ensure that this is possible (DEEWR 2009 pg18). In this
respect, the EYLF represents an inclusive approach, in principle, to Early Childhood Education.
Unfortunately, although inclusion is advocated as necessary, the EYLF puts the horse before the cart
by neglecting to outline the red flags for identification of children with additional needs. In order to
effectively implement an inclusion plan for a child with a disability, the obstacles and possible
outcomes need to first be examined (Whitely, Smith & Hutchison 2005). The EYLF almost contradicts
itself here, with several explicit references to inclusion practices without directly underlining the
concept of early identification, which in the correct order logically lead to more effective and
targeted inclusion practices.
Early identification of children with special needs involves careful observation of each child
and the documentation of their learning and progression (Porter 2002). The EYLF states that
educators need to develop an in depth knowledge of each child and identify their strengths and
interests in order to program meaningful curriculum (DEEWR 2009). This approach means that
educators are focusing on what the children in their care are good at or have a liking for to the
detriment of identifying behaviours or outcomes which may be seen in a negative light. In order to
implement effective early intervention and prevention practices educators must investigate the
whole spectrum of facets relating to each child and recognise that inabilities and difficulties are a
significant indicator for possible intervention (Whitely, Smith & Hutchison 2005). A culture of belief
in all childrens capacities to succeed regardless of diverse circumstances and abilities (DEEWR
2009 pg 12) is a noble and valuable objective, however, it is essential to be realistic about the best
interests of the child. This includes providing children with vital resources and specialist help which
will boost their ability to reach their potential, rather than simply take the role of an onlooker who
believes in the child but does little to enable their growth.

Mohay & Reid (2006) suggest that negative attitudes of key stakeholders in Early Childhood
programs including parents, care providers, policy-makers and teachers can be a substantial
hindrance to inclusion practices. It stands to reason that educators and parents are two of the most
direct parties involved a childs chances of early identification and ensuing access to resources and
services. The EYLF as a mandatory policy in Early Childhood settings is a day to day influence on the
attitudes and previous experiences of educators in the field who then go on to share their
understandings and beliefs with families through their everyday interactions (Horsley & Bauer
2010). In its current form, the EYLF does not advocate strongly for swift and accurate identification
of children with special needs and only brushes the surface of a practice which has been shown to
have significant impact on childrens lives (ECA & ECIA 2012). With the national policy lacking in
vigour for the cause of early identification, educators attitudes towards it have little to measure up
to and are reliant on their varied education and experience. Independent of other beliefs, Mohay &
Reid (2006) found that higher levels of training and experience correlated with positive attitudes
towards children with additional needs and that this disposition in educators was influential on the
beliefs of the children and parents they work with. This highlights a disconnect between education
outcomes of Early Childhood educators and the EYLF guide in that the peer reviewed consensus on
early identification is taught to our educators and inadequately reflected in the national Government
policy.
Thomas (2011) suggests that educators use the UNCRC principles to create a systematic
focus on non discrimination, the views of children, childrens survival, development and their best
interests for the benefit of children in their care. Which raises the question of who is responsible
for the childs best interests? Regardless of the external interventions educators wish to use, if the
family is opposed then it is their prerogative to decline assistance (Murray, Christensen, Umbarger,
Rade, Aldridge & Niemeyer 2007). With such a power imbalance in decisions regarding
identification or intervention for children with additional needs the EYLF does not clearly dictate the
paramount nature of parental co-operation. This is not to say it lacks encouragement for

collaboration between families, communities and educators. However, in order to best equip
educators in enterprises regarding identifying additional support needs of a certain child the
Framework could be more flexible in allowing educators freedoms for internal evaluations and
support personnel especially considering the duty of care applied to all educators.
In conclusion, although the Early Years Learning Framework makes mention of a variety of
relevant and important principles, the urgency and importance of early identification is
underrepresented and seemingly undervalued. It is imperative that our national policy does not
promote a system where children are able to slip through gaps during their Early Education to the
detriment of their future. In order to correct its inadequacies, the EYLF needs to develop a more
targeted and practical guide which values intervention in action so as to serve the best interests of
our nations children and nurture their potential in its blossoming stages.